What I took from the PBS video and Brant's post is that for a major network to allow a partisan filmmaker, without clearly disclosing that filmmaker's bias, to air a fictionialized account of an event that is still central to our political life, on the fifth anniversary of that event, in the heat of a key election in which that event is a centerpiece, is a dicey proposition. Sometimes, timing is everything.

I don't see how that's advocating "less speech."

Also, as per Bill Densmore's post about ABC making the movie in the first place, my understanding is that ABC didn't make that movie. It was made by a conservative filmmaker and distributed by ABC.

Jeffrey Fox
Technology Editor
Consumer Reports
(for ID only all opinions expressed are my own)

Dear Mr. Powell,

Thank you for commenting on the PBS Newshour's analysis of this problem.

Personally, I think the Newshour's guests were more in the "don't
yell fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire" camp. Although
at least one of them referred to how when Michael Moore makes a
movie, everyone knows it is a movie with a political point of
view...an axe to grind, so to speak. So, it's not that they were 100
percent against movies like this being made.

However, ABC consistently claimed that "The Path to 9/11" had no
political axe to grind...that it was non-partisan in nature, even if
some scenes were made up. This we now know was not the truth. Even
if Bob Iger did not order the making of a politically slanted film,
that is what the film makers made. And the attempt was then made to
market this mini-series as "the truth".

We need a free speech to have a society. But I think the main point
here (if film makers aren't going to refrain from making 9/11
docudramas) is "transparency". Let's have people be honest about the
"speeches" they are making. Let's have free speech. But let's also
have it be honest speech. I know it's a tall order. But I think
it's a standard we should all aim for.

Best regards.

Steve Brant

On Sep 14, 2006, at 2:13 AM, Adam Powell wrote:

> So... the solution to bad speech is less speech? That doesn´t sound
> like a viable position in a free society
>
> Adam Clayton Powell III
> Director, Integrated Media Systems Center
> USC Viterbi School of Engineering
> 213-740-0877 fax 213-740-8931
> http://imsc.usc.edu/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Densmore
> Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:07 pm
> Subject: [MGP-Forum Announce] Brant's post re PBS Newshour on ABC's
> "The Path to 9/11": A Bad Idea From The Start
> To:
>
>>
>> MGP2006 participant Steven Brant has written on his Huffington Post
>> blog about the ABC-TV "docu-drama" on "The Path to 9/11." He writes
>> about a PBS Newshour discussion: "In this instance, PBS does what
>> it sometimes does very well - bring on academic experts who analyze
>> an issue (at least in part) in its larger context. The bottom line:
>> these two experts think ABC should have never considered making
>> this movie in the first place.
>>
>> PBS Newshour on "The Path to 9/11": A Bad Idea From The Start
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/pbs-newshour-on-the-
>> path_b_29359.html
>>

With all due respect... Steven Brant didn't add much to the discussion. He
gave a pointer to the link. Well, he didn't given the link, he ripped the
video onto YouTube (an ethical gray area to me; a friend of mine who's a
lawyer for a PBS affiliate has some interesting thoughts on that.) The
pitfall of blog commentary is that since it's so easy to cut & paste, many
people do.

Here's the transcript from PBS. Much easier to parse:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec06/docudrama_09-12....

I'll add something to the public discussion I haven't seen yet. Compare
the metadiscussion around "Path to 9/11" versus that around the docudrama
"Good Night and Good Luck." George Clooney and Grant Heslov took this on
the road show, appearing at Columbia, on C-SPAN, and many other public
forums, taking questions, and hiding nothing.

So it seems to me that what might have satisfied Brant, Powell, and others
would be if the Path to 9/11 filmmakers had participated in as many public
forums. To my knowledge, they haven't. They have a blog on the ABC
website, but their blog is used for the pretense of audience interaction,
and not actual. (I left that point on Dan Gillmor's citmedia blog earlier
in the week).

For the record, Good Night & Good Luck's website blog (part of
Participate.net, part of Mark Cuban's effort) wasn't perfect, either. I
participated on it for a time last December, and petitioned them to post a
timeline of historical events in order to augment the movie's timeline.
They didn't accede, and I remained disappointed, and as I have no sway
with Mr. Cuban or Mr. Clooney, that was that.

see
http://civilities.net/GoodNightAndGoodLuck

In conclusion, it seems to me that as censorship of media is
near-impossible, we the media-giraffe public should insist on responsible
post-production of docu-dramas: participation in public forums, and a full
website to deal with questions and issues about the facts of the film.

Jon

Jon Garfunkel
http://civilities.net/
Boston, Mass.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Adam Powell wrote:

> So... the solution to bad speech is less speech? That doesnt sound like a viable position in a free society

Bill Densmore wrote:
> > PBS Newshour on "The Path to 9/11": A Bad Idea From The Start
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/pbs-newshour-on-the-
> > path_b_29359.html